“My heart is moved by all I cannot save”

Understanding why climate change means global famine

BPSDBOne of the unfortunate things about Al Gore’s “Inconvenient Truth” is it led to the notion that the principle threat posed by climate change is coastal flooding.

One could watch the film and conclude that if you didn’t live near a coast climate change is problem that need not concern you directly. NOT!

A few days ago New Scientist published “Billions could go hungry from global warming by 2100 and this seemed to surprise a lot of people. Apparently they had no idea. Reality check. Far and away the most serious threat posed by climate change is famine, truly massive, global famine.

This seems counter-intuitive as another unfortunate climate change myth is that it will be good for plants. More warmth and higher CO2 levels sure sounds like it should.

The threat to crops is is in various ways and not all regions are threatened. In fact under conditions of moderate climate change a few regions of the world will actually benefit in the short to medium term. (Note “short to medium term” = decades, not centuries)

However they are the exception, for the majority the effects will range from negative to devastating. Indeed Australia and northeast Africa are already visibly suffering the consequences.

Climate change affects crops in different ways because there is more than one thing happening. Yes there is more CO2 and it will get warmer, but “warmer” means quite a few different things. I would like to offer a quick survey to help people appreciate what we are facing.

Let’s start with rising seas. A two meter rise in sea level may not seem like much if you are thinking of the cliffs of Dover, but for low lying places like Bangladesh and Florida it is huge. Some of the worlds best agricultural land is in river deltas like the Nile and the Mekong which are very close to sea level.

The greater threat from rising sea levels is not actual flooding, but infiltration of ground water by sea water. Once the ground water becomes saline the salt migrates up through the soil and turns productive land into a salt desert.

A two meter rise in sea level can affect agricultural land quite some distance from the ocean. A majority of the world’s food production is within 5 m of sea level.

Warmer weather means different weather, and that means changes in rainfall. There are a great many variables involved in creating weather, but some broad patterns are known.

Warmer air can hold more moisture, which will mean more rainfall in some regions when the air masses bring in more moisture. In other regions it will mean greater drought as the warmer air sucks up more moisture.

It depends on how saturated with moisture the air is, and on whether the system is warming or cooling. Systems that are cooling will tend to drop rain. Systems that are warming will tend to suck up moisture.

Weather systems coming off of the ocean will tend to be wet. Systems coming from mountains will tend to be drying as the air descends and warms. The same will tend to be true for systems moving from north to south (ie they will be warming).

In crude terms we expect dry areas to get drier, and wet areas to get wetter. Neither is good news.

Most grain growing regions in the world are really pretty dry, including the Canadian prairies, the American West, the Ukraine and northern China. Marginal lands will become desert and good land degraded.

Already areas of Oklahoma and Texas are experiencing drought comparable to what they experienced in the Great Dust Bowl of the 1930s.

Yes the IPCC stated that for North America “In the early decades of the century, moderate climate change is projected to increase aggregate yields …”, but the rest of that quote is “… of rain-fed agriculture by 5 to 20%, but with important variability among regions. ”

In other words food production that depends on irrigation and/or is already in a water stressed region will not benefit; in these regions food production will decline.

So what areas of North America have been experiencing more drought in the past decade or so? The West of course (Canada and USA), California, the South East, and Florida. ie almost everywhere that grows food.

But more rain is not a good thing either as flooding will kill a crop as effectively as drought, as happened last summer in the American mid-west.

Even without floods more water can be a problem as low lying areas become flooded or marshy, and poorer draining soils become waterlogged, all of which damages crops or removes land from production entirely.

For regions that experience changes in rainfall it is critical how and when the rain comes, not just how much in total.

It seems likely that the increases we expect will not be spread out, but rather come as stronger, more intense storms. These will damage crops directly without necessarily benefiting them as the water simply runs off. Increased runoff will cause more soil erosion and flood waterways.

Even if the total rainfall is “just right”, it won’t matter if it doesn’t come at the right times. Drenching storms followed long dry periods are of no particular benefit.

Lack of rain during planting will not be fixed by heavy rain later. Too much rain during harvest season can destroy a crop completely.

Wetter will also mean increased mold, rot, and other diseases for many crops.

Warmer weather also means more intense heat waves, and more of them. Heat waves stress crops and reduce productivity at the best of times. If there is an intense heat wave during germination, flower set, or fruit set it can wipe the crop out completely.

The worlds glaciers are in catastrophic decline and this is disaster for agriculture in many parts of the world. Historically in winter the glaciers act as a storehouse for accumulated snow which then melts in high summer. For many rivers in the world the glaciers are the main water source at this time of year.

Many regions of the world depend on glacier fed rivers for irrigation during the driest part of the summer. This is true of the Canadian prairies, large areas of the American West, temperate South America, and much of central Asia. At current rates of decline glaciers will cease to be a meaningful source of water sometime in the next 20 to 40 years.

Climate change not only threatens crops, but fisheries as well. The increased acidification of ocean caused by CO2 absorption impacts marine life in many ways, and for the most part not good.

As things currently stand we anticipate almost all fisheries to be wiped out in this century under the dual pressure of climate change and over fishing.

Regardless of the morality of it, the fact is that at least some of the worlds cropland is dedicated to biofuels and that will probably increase as the price of oil increases. Farmers will sell where they get the best price, and if the wealthy are willing to pay more to continue to indulge their luxuries, then the poor will be without food just as they are now.

The Global Outlook

Large areas of the worlds most productive regions are expected to suffer reduced yields from climate change. Indeed for most years in the past decade the world has consumed more grain than it produced and world grain reserves are now near record lows.

Many countries already ban or limit food exports and that is going to increase. At the same time many western countries are encouraging the production of biofuels for economic reasons, but that is taking the land out of food production.

Looking at the above map ask yourself “In 20 to 30 years where will my food come from? and how much will it cost?”

Needless to say this is still a very simplistic overview of a complex issue. Many posts could be written on the physiology of stomata responses to heat stress, or pests and diseases on crops, never mind the uncertainties of predicting regional climate.

Even so I hope it has helped to banish the notion that climate change will have some positive benefits, at least if you agree that famine and accompanying civic collapse tends to over-shadow things like “more beach days.”

There is a certain irony that diet, which is the largest portion of our carbon footprint for most of us, is also the part of our life that is most threatened by climate change.

There are numerous simplistic suggestions for dealing with the coming food crisis, but many of them are as flawed as the “more CO2 means more food” fable is. They will be the topic of a future post.

Of the coming food crisis New Scientist said “…3 billion people will have to choose between going hungry and moving…”

Related

134 Responses

Surely the more important failing of Gore’s film is that he sustains the illusion that we are not already past the tipping point, encouraging us to spend billions of dollars in the futile attempt to “stop the tide from coming in” when really what we need to be doing is preparing for mass migrations, clathrates coming up from the tundra and oceans, and billions of deaths.

The science of human behaviour has been left out of the science of global warming, i.e. what do 100 rats do when in a cage made for ten?

The IPCC is a political entity, from a culture where cost overruns are a normalcy.

In 1972, Limits to Growth stated, “because of the delays in the system, if the global society waits until those onstraints
are unmistakably apparent, it will have waited too long.” These constraints were obvious in the mid 1980’s, if not in 1896.
—-

There are many who would agree with you, while the rest fall into 2 camps:
i) why “prepare”? catastrophic climate change is not something the human species can survive, and
ii) since it is not certain, we have to try.

Mike – The point is what do we try to do and why? People are wasting resources on fights that have been lost, so there will be nothing left to deal with the work that will soon be upon us.

The reason for doing it is the same as the reason that has always existed….”How do we want to define ourselves?” but what it is we do is a very practical matter. Greens may be trapped and distracted by fighting denial instead of dealing with reality. Fighting denial is the grave in which Greens have one foot stuck.
—-

So you believe the Deniers will cooperate with the agenda you suggest? Call me a skeptic, but feel free to show us by example.

“How do we want to define ourselves?” Yes, that is the question. For myself I want to be someone that works to prevent the horror, not prepares to survive it.
Mike

You write of the effects of a two meter rise in sea level as it it were a given, and at the same time of the effects of global warming in 2100. You explain so little that I must make assumptions as to what you’re talking about, but clearly you would be implying a significant melting of Greenland in order to come up with that volume of water. That would likely require a millennium time scale–certainly not a century.

So, I’d have to assume that you are thinking that by burning fossil fuels, we will trigger a powerful positive feedback that will last many centuries past our supply of fossil fuels, even if we decided to keep burning them until we ran out, rather than come up with something else.

I’m making a lot of assumptions about your assumptions–I don’t like doing that, but maybe you can elaborate on the two meters of sea level rise and associated time scale, and your sources.

Thanks.
—-

i) A 2 meter rise IS a given, as is much, much more; we are just not certain when;

ii) I do not give time frames as that is not that relevant to the purpose of the article. It is all ‘in the next century more or less‘;

iii) As reported at Climate Progress, 2 m is now within the range of ‘probable';

iv) The last 20+ years has seen predictions move very rapidly down the spectrum from ‘hysterical alarmism’ to ‘worst case’ to ‘most likely’ to ‘best case’ to ‘hopelessly optimistic’.
2 m just made the first move, and I have little doubt it will have completed the spectrum within a decade.

vi) Not necessarily Greenland. The acceleration of alpine glacial melt is mobilizing a lot of water. I seem to have misplaced my reference for the amount of water, but it is not insignificant (anyone have a source?).

vii) As for positive feedbacks, it looks very much like we are teetering on the brink of triggering any one of several, oceans become sources rather than sinks, clathrate mobilization, arctic ice and albedo – so it is not unlikely at all.
Mike

I look at it completely differently. First, the tipping point is not an “environmental” factor, but a social one. We passed it when we decided, decade after decade, not to do anything.

Second, most Greens seem to have incredibly childish ideas about how sensibly humans act and/or can act, especially in groups.

Third, from what I read, we are already into the feedback loops that are bigger than the human factor, although the human factor continues to accelerate things.

Saying that deniers will or will not go along with an agenda has nothing to do with where we are on a curve. That is a comment about the politics of action. Expending resources on hopeless tasks and not having those resources to deal with more important ones later just because it is all deniers will do does nothing to change where we are on a curve. Perhaos deniers will not go along with it, but that doesn’t change what will happen.

Hope is valuable, and I hope we will act in ways that define us better rather than worse. But from what I read, and James Lovelock is no longer alone on this, we are far past the enviromental tipping point but the real tipping point was sociological and we are even further past that one.

It seems that Greens are incredibly optimistic, to the point of blindness, about the situation as it has been developing for perhaps 12,000 years, about feedback, about rates of warming considering feedback, and especially about the sensibleness of human beings.

“You write of the effects of a two meter rise in sea level as it it were a given, and at the same time of the effects of global warming in 2100. You explain so little that I must make assumptions as to what you’re talking about, but clearly you would be implying a significant melting of Greenland in order to come up with that volume of water. That would likely require a millennium time scale–certainly not a century.”

Paul says:

No, research released just a few weeks ago shows that the IPCC is out of date and that 1 metre would be reached by 2100. Such a rise or even 2 metres does not require significant melting of Greenland. It can easily be achieved with continued world wide ‘trickle’ melting of glaciers and land based ice in general with a little increase in what we are seeing now.

BTW a two metre rise would have a big impact on Dover!
A 1 metre rise would also.
That is because huge chunks of the white cliffs of Dover already fall into the sea every year. In fact an old lighthouse had to be moved from the edge a few years ago.

Thanks for all the comments on my post, folks, but I was really asking greenfyre about the background for *his* blog post. [1]

I’m not impressed that someone looked into the past a couple of thousand years in order to figure out what could possibly happen again. [2] We haven’t been getting unusual sea level rise yet (even the 2007 IPCC report admits the small acceleration seen could be a decadal effect, and their low-end prediction of 7″ my century’s end is pretty darn close to the average sea level increase we’ve been seeing in modern centuries).

Also, to claim that the IPCC is out of date–hey folks, they didn’t pick the worst case of everything, to their credit, but research that was somewhat within the grasp of reason. You’d have to be implying that in the 2011 report they will embrace this 1 meter scenario, and that is unlikely. Note that their sea level rise predictions have gotten smaller in each successive report, as they tweak their prediction models to better match what we’ve been seeing over time. Live by the models and die by them, folks–you can’t warn the world of doom based on the models, then claim the models are way off on other predictions that you wish were bleaker. [3]
—-

[1] Done, see your previous comment

[2] Since no one ever suggested otherwise why bring it up?

[3] The models are quite consistently turning out to be correct, it is the toned down IPCC projections that are proving to have been far too optimistic.

When carbon dioxide level from http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/vostok.html is plotted on the same graph as the average global temperature anomalies (differences from a reference temperature) from http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/trends/temp/vostok/vostok.1999.temp.dat it is discovered that the change in atmospheric carbon dioxide level typically lagged average earth temperature change by hundreds of years. It is also discovered that, repeatedly, a temperature increasing trend changed to a decreasing trend with the atmospheric carbon dioxide level higher during the temperature down-trend than it had been when the temperature trend was up. This proves that added atmospheric carbon dioxide has no significant influence on average global temperature and that there is no net positive feedback in earth’s climate. Climate scientists incorporate features in their atmosphere/ocean global climate models (AOGCMs) that result in significant net positive feedback. This causes the AOGCMs to erroneously predict substantial global warming. Without significant net positive feedback AOGCMs do not predict significant global warming.[3]

The conclusion from all this is that anthropogenic global warming is a mistake. Google Dan Pangburn global warming and select the Middlebury site to see most of this already graphed.
—-

You actually imagine that all of this isn’t already known to climate scientists? You really don’t realize that this has all been examined and found to be irrelevant, mistaken, a misrepresentation, or pure delusion?

[1] Yes, a) what’s your point? and b) as the oceans warm they start releasing more of it as a positive feedback that drives climate change harder.

[2] And you are trying to imply that since that is what happened then, it is what is happening now, when all you are doing is displaying your lack of understanding.

a) past events suggest possible causes and relationships, but they are not demonstrations of causation;
b) Please learn the CO2 basics.

Note that their sea level rise predictions have gotten smaller in each successive report,

Oh really?

Also, if the sea level rise predictions get bigger and bigger with each successive IPCC report, then — the inactivists will say — the IPCC is just trying to spread doom and gloom to get boatloads of funding and usher in a New World Order!

Therefore, if the predictions become bigger, this clearly shows that the IPCC is wrong, and if the predictions become smaller, this also clearly shows that the IPCC is wrong.

Wow–YOU provided the twisted logic, and attributed it to me. They call that a “straw man” argument.

What I said was the IPCC sea level rise predictions have fallen from report to report. This is because 17 years have passed and they could take in observations over that time, and adjust their models closer to reality. They rely on the models to make the sea level predictions.

The point was, that it would be an unexpected departure for them to suddenly switch to using the “1 meter by 2100″ scenario, just because a study said it was possible. It’s unlikely they will dump their models. The IPCC doesn’t simply adopt the new worst case scenario.

Too many zealots here, was hoping to get my original question answered, but I’ll bow out now. When people start pretending I said something I didn’t say, that’s enough.
—-

Anyone who had actually looked at the sites may have noticed that they included CDIAC, NOAA, ORNL and USD. I wonder about the knowledge of anyone who examined them and found the information “to be irrelevant, mistaken, a misrepresentation, or pure delusion”

Your problem is that I do understand the relevant science. All of it, including how nearly all absorbed radiation is immediately shared with the much more numerous oxygen and nitrogen atoms in the atmosphere.

As the atmospheric carbon dioxide level continues to increase and average global temperature doesn’t, a growing number of people, especially those who actually understand the science, are beginning to realize that many climate scientists must have missed something.

What many in the climate science community appear to be unaware of is how NET feedback actually works in a dynamic system like earth’s climate. If they were aware of it they would realize that the ice core data from the last and previous glacial periods proves that NET positive feedback does not exist in earth’s climate.

I will continue to spread the truth at uncensored blogs.
—-

Since not a word of your post has been altered or removed you cannot claim censorship; unless you suffer from the standard Denier confusion where they think having their errors pointed out is “censorship.” Actually that is ‘education.’

But yes please, spam someone else with cut and paste that you have been posting on numerous blogs.

Or, if you are so certain then write it up as a scientific paper and submit it to a journal – your enduring fame as a genius is certain.
Mike

Unfortunately, your conclusion is basically a word for word cut and paste from a denialist site. :-(

I guess you know the one.

My understanding of e.g. EPICA core data for the Antarctic is that it tells us about past periods of warming and we can understand some of the effects this warming has had on the environment in the past, which informs other types of analysis.

In combination with other scientific analyses e.g. computer models, scientists the world over since at least 1975 have expressed concern about the domination of climate change by human-caused factors.

The models take into good account uncertainties about past and future cycles.

Can you be more specific about the information or physical principles you think have been overlooked?

Thank you–sorry, I wasn’t used to the format of this blog and didn’t expect a reply to be inline (threaded), when it didn’t appear other folks could reply as such.

Your statement “A 2 meter rise IS a given, as is much, much more; we are just not certain when”… are you referring to a millennia time scale? We’ve risen 120 meter or so over the past 20k years. Greenland has enough water to raise sea levels 7 meters. I expect we might get 2 meters or more rise before the next glacial period whether man was here or not.

If you’re talking about 2100, however, it is most certainly not “given”. In fact, it’s at the top end of remotely possible:

But sticking to facts and not predictions, the seas have been rising for thousands of years. Currently, we’re gaining 1.8 mm a year; we accelerated from the early 90’s to the early 2k’s, coinciding with decadal variability (which is why the AR4 hedges on this point). Since then, we’ve slowed. [2] People here are talking of massive and obvious sea level rise as if it were happening now–it’s not.

The IPCC low-end of projected sea level rise corresponds roughly to the 1.8 mm/yr figure continuing to the end of the century. [3]
—-

[1] I provided the source link when I responded, and much more recent than yours.

[2] Only if you want to consider trivial annual variation, but we are talking trends, not variation, and it has not slowed.

[3] I stand by the latest information (as per the link in the previous comment) and the prediction I made earlier that within a decade we will regard 2m this century as having been ridiculously naive.
Mike

You certainly aren’t even though we have been. You mistake arrogance for competence … they are not even spelled in a remotely similar manner. You keep talking about the science but never cite anything – provide credible sources or stop talking.
Mike

codehead, try having a look at the current scientific literature on this subject. The abstracts from the AGU 2008 fall meeting are the best place. Re “slowed”, note that you need to account for thermal expansion to get the melt contribution. Present consensus is for a meter, BTW.

“Most of the marine-based ice in West Antarctica is held behind the Ross and Filcher-Ronne ice shelves, which Pfeffer’s team believes are unlikely to be removed by climate or oceanographic processes during the next century.”

— is probably much too conservative. Google for David Vaughan’s recent remarks (plus he may have had a paper at AGU).

Also, in connection with the small glaciers, the just-released WGMS report for 2007 notes a continued acceleration and its head predicts total loss by 2050 (IIRC much faster than Pfeffer et al assumed). This new evidence is rather striking.

I’m happy to discuss the details, but you need to check the state of the science before opening your mouth.

I didn’t know science was put to a vote, but please tell me who was involved in this consensus and how it was arrive at. Were several figures put to votes, and 1 meter won? or was 1 meter the average of the scientists estimates?

>you need to check the state of the science before opening your mouth

I can tell you this, without having to decide whose models of future prediction are “right”:

I take it you guys believe the IPCC models are flawed. I thought the IPCC embodied, “the consensus”. Now, I’ll take it your reply might be that the consensus changed in 2008. Would that not just illustrate how far off these models have been? The IPCC sea level predictions dropped from report to report, when in fact “the truth” was far in the opposite direction?

Codehead, “consensus” means what people all agree on. In statements where multiple outcomes are possible and no outcome is absolutely certain, the most conservative estimates are the result.

If estimates of an increase (of some quantity and some random numbers, just to use an example) are 4, 8, 8, 9, 5, 6, and 12 (note no zeros or negative results), the only number that everyone is going to agree to put in the report is 4 (if we put the mode, 8, or the median, 7.4, people below that are going to refuse to endorse it because it’s too high). This is a gross oversimplification, but it illustrates the point.

We see this with the IPCC SPM’s “very likely” statement, by the way. Very likely means 90-99% probable in IPCC terms. Reports from its writing show that they would have used “virtually certain” (>99% probable) were it not for China’s refusal to endorse such a claim. Instead, “very likely” was the only one everyone would agree to endorse.

Martha,
The words are mine and follow thousands of hours of research over two+ years (I am retired so I can do that) trying to get to a correct understanding with absolutely nothing to gain personally either way. If you found the same words elsewhere I probably put them there. I did cut and paste alright but from a WORD file that I wrote on my own computer.

The key discovery comes from graphing the temperature anomalies and carbon dioxide levels reported at the CDIAC web sites. I did this in EXCEL with parameters so that I could compare the temperature and carbon dioxide levels. Regardless of tweaking of these parameters the observation is always the same. The atmospheric carbon dioxide level lags the temperature change. Also, looking at these graphs closely (you can see them at the Middlebury site (which could use an update but I don’t control it. The graphs are valid.)) it is observed that repeatedly during the last and previous glacial periods, a temperature increasing trend changed to a decreasing trend with the atmospheric carbon dioxide level higher during the temperature down-trend than it had been when the temperature trend was increasing. This could not happen if carbon dioxide drives average global temperature (agt). To those who understand how feedback works in a dynamic system like earth’s climate this also proves that NET positive feedback does not exist. (To qualify as a trend it must be at least for a long enough time to average out the PDO (cycle length about 60 years)).

How the ‘then’ applies to the ‘now’ comes from a well known observation in science (a result of Beer’s law) that an added increment of carbon dioxide when atmospheric carbon dioxide level is high has less influence on anything than adding the same size increment when atmospheric carbon dioxide level was lower. Knowing this, it follows that added atmospheric carbon dioxide level now has even less influence on agt than it did during the last (and previous) glacial periods when atmospheric carbon dioxide level was lower and did not drive agt. Thus added atmospheric carbon dioxide level does not now and never will cause a significant increase in agt.

The models (all 23 of them used by the IPCC) are faulty because they incorporate features that result in NET positive feedback which the ice core data proves does not exist. They have other issues such as the parameterization (by definition subjective) to account for clouds. I agree that accounting for uncertainty is good but am reminded that a re-determined value is often outside of previously determined uncertainty limits.

What was/is overlooked is the proof that net positive feedback does not exist in earth’s climate. There is no requirement in climate science to learn Dynamic System Theory. Any dynamic system, regardless of how complex, providing it has only one significant source of energy (in this case the sun) can be reduced to a simple system consisting of an input, a transfer function and an output. In the case of earth’s climate the input consists of the sunshine combined with net feedback effects, the transfer function is all factors that determine how the input influences agt and the output is agt. Many in the climate science community appear to be unaware of how NET feedback actually works in a dynamic system like earth’s climate. If they were aware of it they would realize that the ice core data from the last and previous glacial periods proves that NET positive feedback does not exist in earth’s climate.

The Wikipedia presentation on ice cores at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core is probably as good a starting place as any to learn about ice cores. Unfortunately, anything that is the least bit controversial can be pretty misleading in Wikipedia so don’t take anything you find there as final.

Brian, thanks for the elaborate and condescending answer, but I was asking Steve for backup on the consensus of 1 meter of sea level rise, not for a definition of consensus.

If you don’t understand why I’m asking, maybe you missed that Mike is expecting a 2 meter rise. Is Mike ignoring the consensus, going for a whopping 100% increase over the consensus? Or is Steve wrong? Does the consensus exclude those who think there will no significant change on sea level rise rate over the next century? Surely, if it’s scientific, and a consensus, there must be records as to how this consensus was arrived at. I’m just asking him to point me to this information.

I’ve seen the recent “groundbreaking new results” calling for a 1 meter rise. It involved researchers from Denmark, England, and Finland, and related temperature differences and sea level differences between different period in the past. Obviously, the implication is that if temperature predictions come true, then the sea level would follow based on this research. Since this is “groundbreaking new results”, I assume this is where the 1 meter figure comes from.

So back to “consensus”, and assuming this is the source of the 1 meter figure, is the consensus that Steve mentions between only the scientists involved in that study, or were other scientists invited to vote on it as well? This is science. For this claim of consensus to carry any weight whatsoever, there must be some accounting of it–who was involved, in what manner it was determined.

“The point was, that it would be an unexpected departure for them to suddenly switch to using the “1 meter by 2100″ scenario, just because a study said it was possible. It’s unlikely they will dump their models. The IPCC doesn’t simply adopt the new worst case scenario.”

Paul said:

The study was produced by scientists from various universities across the world. I haven’t checked exactly whether those scientists are contributors of the IPCC, but i suspect they probably are.

The fact is that the IPCC will change it’s views and in all probability they will be more ‘gloomy’. The issue is changing all the time, no matter how slow you wish it to be. The IPCC, being a multinational organisation will inevitably be slow to react, predict and research.

On the other hand, researchers in universities across the world are going to be much more reactive and will publish their findings far quicker than the IPCC.

“If you don’t understand why I’m asking, maybe you missed that Mike is expecting a 2 meter rise. Is Mike ignoring the consensus, going for a whopping 100% increase over the consensus?”

Paul Said:

Interesting definition. A 100% increase. OK in a purely matter of fact POV, it is a 100% increase. But purely matter of fact views can be just as misleading as information designed to mislead.

Currently sea levels are rising at about 3mm per year. That isn’t a great deal if skeptics are to believed, also if that were doubled then 6mm per year also isn’t a big deal either.

But what do we see after many decades?
Oh, seas are 2 metres higher rather than 1 metre higher. What is required to achieve this?
Lets not forget also that there is a maximum height that the seas are likely to reach if CO2 is continually pumped into the atmosphere and feedback mechanisms take effect.

If we are going to use misleading percentages then 2 metres is only about 3% of the highest point the seas could reach.

So do we use your 100% figure or my 3% figure?

The answer is that the only important issue is what impact 2 metres would have on people, the environment etc.

Paul–the 100% figure was simply noting that Mike was using a number that was not close to Steve’s “consensus”. If the consensus is meaningless, why tell me about it? The point is, I don’t think there is a consensus, and if there is, I don’t think it’s meaningful. Otherwise Mike wouldn’t be using a figure twice its size, saying that it “IS a given”. If there is a consensus, and it is meaningful, then Steve can answer my questions about it.

@Peter Sinclair: Are you kidding me? Tell us what the “norm” was 4 billion years ago and how much we’ve deviated from it, then I may listen.

Until you have ALL of the data – this incomplete dataset will never allow me to open my wallet to this cause, this religion – this HOAX.

Its time we begin fighting things which are truly happening. Things which are tangible and real. Crime. Poverty. Education (or the lack thereof) in our public schools. Illegal immigration. Outsourcing of jobs. Litter and trash in your local roads and parks. You’ve got PLENTY of work right there – for generations to come.

Its time to stop hoping and wishing for another industry to be created around some HOAX that environmentalist buffoons have created, so that you can all feel good about something else.

Feel good about fixing problems in your own back yards first. The rest of the planet will take care of itself as it has done so for 4+ billion years.

@ Dan Pangburn – If you think you’re going to demonstrate that the entire planet’s climatologists are wrong (and have been for decades), sitting in your basement with an Excel spreadsheet, then you really need to read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger_effect

@ codehead – You’re the equivalent of someone fussing over dirty dishes while the house is on fire. Or maybe some bloke in 1939 saying, “yeah, the Germans have got thousands of tanks and guns lined up on the border – but they haven’t invaded – so let’s do nothing and see what happens”.

What are you hoping to achieve by picking at threads here? If you catch greenfyre out will you feel you’re a little closer to falsifying ACC?

greenfyre is absolutely correct in his assessment. The way things are heading, 2 metres could be a distant dream in 100 years. On the upside, if there’s anything resembling civilisation left, New York and London will make great scuba diving destinations.

Why are you incapable of finding information for yourself instead of badgering others for it?

That was a rhetorical question. I know why. It’s because you’re not actually interested in the truth – if you were you’d have done your own research, like all of us here have. We’ve followed the science, developed a basic (for me, anyway) understanding. We’ve also witnessed a constant stream of lies and idiocy from people who don’t *want* ACC to be true. People like you.

frankbi – “Maybe there’ll come a time when we should simply get these guys defenestrated.”

It’s long past. If only we had a spare planet to send them all off to. Imagine the paradise we’d have if we were rid of these people who believe it’s their birthright to consume as much as they can and who think wildlife and nature are just expendable entertainment.

In the mean time we’ll need to keep pushing back against the idiocy. I think Mike’s tagline nails it:

Paul,
If you had actually looked at the graphs you might have discovered that your post is not relevant.

Frankbi,
Repeating or rationalizing a mistake does not make it less of a mistake.

Martha,
What I believe is always subject to challenge; especially by me. I am not sure what is implied by your use of the word majority. Those on record are a tiny fraction of the total extant. What I have observed is that “More scientists and engineers are on record declaring that [increased] atmospheric carbon dioxide level has no significant influence on climate than there are saying that it does (Not that it matters).” I emphasize ‘Not that it matters’. Only one needs to be right.

I wonder if you realize that you changed ‘on record’ to ‘that record’. I know of four lists which puts the signers ‘on record’. These lists contain up to 31,072 names (yup, that’s the Oregon Petition. What percent of the names can be shown to be invalid?). I don’t know of any equivalent list of alarmists so compare this to the number of technically qualified people with their names attached to the latest IPCC report. Remove the names of those who benefit from declaring that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide has no significant effect on average global temperature and I doubt that the numbers would change much if at all. I certainly gain nothing. If you remove the names of those who benefit from ominous predictions of dire consequences, not many are left.

DavidONE,
Unfortunately, most climatologists appear to be unaware of a relevant part of science. Thus they are pretty much unaware of their mistake. As the atmospheric carbon dioxide level continues to increase and the average global temperature does not they may begin to realize that they may have missed something.

EXCEL was used to graph the numerical data from CDIAC, etc. Any of the graphs can be easily checked against the ‘raw’ data.

DavidONE said:
>Why are you incapable of finding information for yourself instead of badgering others for it?

Good grief. If I said (just for instance), “temperature has been cooling for the past 10 years at a rate of .1 C per year”, would you go looking for that information, or ask me where the heck I got it, what I am referring to.

As for “fussing over the dishes while the house is on fire”, well, it’s only on fire in your mind (“if there’s anything resembling civilisation left…”).

If we’re talking about science, the fact I asked where the figure of 2 meters came from shouldn’t result in impugning my character (“you’re not actually interested in the truth”, etc.). The figure was central to the blog post.

As far as doing my own research, I’ve done lots of it over the past year and half. Back then, I believed the hype, and only wanted to get an idea of how bad it might get. If you’d like to actually discuss the available research, fine, but you seem to believe I should swallow what you have swallowed. And my sources aren’t limited to wikipedia and blog posts, but thanks for the links anyway.

“the 100% figure was simply noting that Mike was using a number that was not close to Steve’s “consensus””

Paul Said:

Well no.
The only reason for quoting the percentage was to point out that it was apparently hugely higher (in percentage terms) than the approx 1 metre rise currently touted.
People often use percentages to create an ‘impression’.

To quote yourself “Is Mike ignoring the consensus, going for a whopping 100% increase over the consensus…”

It’s only whopping in the the context of the argument that you are trying to dictate.

3% isn’t whopping so you chose not to use that way of expressing it.

When it comes to looking at the inputs that might lead to two metres, those inputs may indeed be quite small in global terms.

codehead, re the “consensus” on 1 meter (as a minimum, BTW), I waited until one of the relevant experts (Mark Serreze) said there was a consensus.

Re your “research,” your response showed that you’re uninterested in seeing material that undermines your position. If you’re not willing to consider all of the relevant up-to-date science, it would seem that you’re interested only in a political debate. In addition to the AGU material you didn’t want to look at, the RealClimate discussion of the Pfeffer et al paper is informative. Also the recent Rohling et al paper about SLR rates during the last interglacial.

Your diatribe about the IPCC models is strange since the WG1 report clearly stated that future melting was an unknown that could increase SLR significantly. There’s been rather a lot of progress in the 2+ years since then.

Uh, Paul… I asked Mike about his 2 meter figure. Someone else informed me the consensus was 1 meter. That didn’t answer my question, because Mike had said 2 meters was “a given”. Clearly the consensus figure didn’t answer my question because Mike was using a figure of 2 meters. 100% larger. Why, oh why would I use 3% to illustrate that discrepancy? If I had asked why Mike used a value twice as large, would that have been equally troublesome for you?

I don’t understand why it seems to be so contentious here to ask a most basic supposition upon which this blog post relies.

Here’s the thing. Dunning Kruger describes the hypothesis that idiots think they know more than clever people. I believe the clever people – the scientists – because I know I know less than them. You think you know more than the clever people. All of them. QED – you’re an idiot.

Mike said:
>You keep talking about the science but never cite anything

Yes, “about science”, this discussion doesn’t get very far–if I ask why 2 meters, I’m told 1 meter is the consensus; if I ask how is the consensus was formed, and why 2 meters instead of the consensus, I’m blasted for not knowing what consensus means, and for noting that 2 meters is 100% greater than 1 meter (and not 3%!!).

But I did cite research that limits the maximum practical possibility of sea level rise to 2 meters, and more probably lower, despite people here implying it could be far greater than that.

Of course, I could have cited studies and models expecting far less, but my point here wasn’t to argue, but simply understand your basis for selecting 2 meters as the premise for your blog post. It has turned out to be a astoundingly difficult task.

“The 97% of active climatologists is 75 out of the 77 in the survey.” It’s a large percentage of a small number of people. Nothing further implied–just pointing it out for those who wouldn’t bother reading.

> …would you go looking for that information, or ask me where the heck I got it, …

Given the fact that nearly 100% of Deniers either refuse to provide sources (“it’s up to you to prove me wrong!”) or link to sideshow blogs run by radio weathermen and economists, I’ve got used to doing my own fact-checking.

What ratio of admissible papers should we have before you admit defeat? 0 to 10? 0 to 50? And that’s the reality – you have *zero* papers that falsify the 100+ years of climate science.

And finally, if you came to this conversation with a shred of personal honesty you would concede error and join the Reality Gang. But you won’t. You’ll continue your crusade to find that shred of evidence that proves you right. No worries. It’ll arrive any day now.

P.S. I did spot that you ducked all of the science that I previously referenced.

You’re not seriously comparing Earth (0.0385% atmospheric co2) with Venus (96%), are you? Where do you propose we get the co2 from?

>I simply recognise the various styles of Deniers.

And I recognize the various styles of eco-fascists as well. One of them is that they refer to people who don’t share their opinions as “Deniers”.

>And the mind of ~97% of climatologists

97% of 77 who completed a survey that asked the yes/no question: “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?” For the record, I don’t doubt that it’s a significant contributing factor as well. I’m not sure if the dominant factor–we’ve risen 0.6 C, coming out of the coldest period in millennia (the little ice age), so if it helped, thank goodness (just my opinion, no science involved). It’s a logarithmic effect–we’ve already seen most of the temperature change for a doubling, and have limits as to how much and how fast we can contribute to GHG increases, so I don’t think it’s a crisis on the scale of world hunger, malaria, and other issues. Alarmists rely on the idea of powerful positive feedbacks, and that’s the part I doubt, and I think it’s obvious that other factors dominate the system. But I don’t want to argue here whether I’m right or you’re–the point is that the survey doesn’t differentiate. You and I might both answer yes to the question, though we at opposite ends of the issue. Even Richard Lindzen might answer “yes”, since he acknowledges significant co2 forcing in his research.

>P.S. I did spot that you ducked all of the science that I previously referenced.

You dumped various stuff on me–wikipedia on scientific opinion (why would I want to discuss this? Mostly a matter of scientific bureaucracy as told by… wikipedia?), sea level rise (of which we discussed just a bit–I did cite research as to limits, but I don’t see a point in me producing models and research that say one potential level or range, and you producing another), the survey (on which I’ve commented). Anything I missed? I’m a busy guy–if there is some particular passage in any of that that you’d like me to comment on with more focus, let me know.

As you suggest, I meant to say “You have commented that the majority of scientists and engineers who are on record, are on record declaring that atmospheric carbon dioxide levels do not have a significant influence on climate” and
“Where are/is that record(s)?”

With or without this pedantry, we arrive at the Oregon petition. For reasons blogged here and elsewhere, it’s not an imposing list. I don’t know why you still refer to it.

I see that many of your exchanges on other sites have completely exhausted those who have attempted to discuss the current science and the depth and breadth of recent interdisciplinary climate research and knowledge.

You seem to have have two repetitively expressed concerns, namely: the IPCC is dominated by governments seeking to end the American way of life and freedom; and climate scientists have seriously misunderstood systems theory, numerical models, and feedback mechanisms (but you have not).

>100% larger. Why, oh why would I use 3% to illustrate that discrepancy?

Paul said:

Why use 100% to illustrate a discrepancy?

100% is a relative percentage, based on current base sea levels. If one person said seas would rise 1cm and another said 2cm then you could make the same statement. It is meaningless in light of the system being considered.

Dan, i have looked at your graphs and analysis and i suggest you discuss your findings with experienced scientists.

Your findings are somewhat simplistic and are so typical of skeptics, they are just about what i would expect from a retired engineer applying tools that they know and used in their earlier career.

If I want some plumbing fixed, I call a plumber not a bank manager.

The last statement on your page sums up the problem you have:

“These actions put freedom and prosperity at risk.”

Unfortunately a retired engineer may not want to see change and might like to see his old profession keep going.
I think you need to look at yourself and open your mind to new possibilities. ‘Green’ technology is one of the best fields of engineering that young graduates could be getting into.

Instead of wasting your time with your climate hobby, i suggest you encourage young engineering graduates to take up the challenges of a low carbon future. It is far more exciting than the old carbon tech that we need to dump.

Oh, you thought I meant that Earth was going to become *exactly* like Venus? Easy mistake to make – for the deliberately obtuse. No, by mentioning Venus we can see what happens when the atmosphere is saturated with carbon. We’ve increased CO2 levels in the past ~250 years by 40%. When do *you* think we should stop? Take in to account that there’s ~40 years (top of head, someone correct me if wrong) of latent heating stored in the ‘system’.

> eco-fascists … refer to people who don’t share their opinions as “Deniers”.

> I’m not sure … I don’t think it’s a crisis… I doubt… I don’t want to argue here…

Personal incredulity seems to be your main argument – “I don’t understand it so no one else does”.

Your uncertainty is irrelevant when stacked against the massive consensus of climatologists and statements issued by every national science academy of every major industrialised country on the planet. You can wave off http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change as being unreliable – but that exposes your dishonesty because we all know that the entire page is meticulously referenced.

You can intimate that all these science academies are politically motivated, as nearly all Deniers do – but none of you ever produce a shred of evidence that they’re all lying or wrong in some massive, decades-long global conspiracy to steal your SUV. Again, you expose your dishonesty, delusion and desperation.

And you don’t want to argue here because you have no other argument. You have no argument based on science – and that is why no one is listening to you – least of all your new president. Get used to at least four years of being irrelevant to the conversation.

>by mentioning Venus we can see what happens when the atmosphere is saturated with carbon.

As I pointed out, the co2 situation is 0.0385% versus 96%. How much do you think we can raise our atmospheric carbon by burning every last ounce of fossil fuels on the planet, if we could? The oceans have been rising 20k years. If the oceans rose 30,000 feet, we’d all be dead. Same implication.

Just because scientific advocacy organizations take a position on behalf of their members, it doesn’t make it science, and it doesn’t make it right. I didn’t say “unreliable”–“meaningless” would be more appropriate.

That banging noise inside your head is known as ‘cognitive dissonance’. It gets particularly loud when you can’t even keep your bullshit consistent over the space of a few comments.

Even if I knew nothing of the science behind ACC, I could read just a few comments from someone like you and see immediately where the truth lies. All you’ve got is weasely rhetoric, avoidance, dissembling and transparent dishonesty.

“The science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear. … Delay is no longer an option. Denial is no longer an acceptable response. The stakes are too high. The consequences too serious….” – President Barack Obama

>Paul–I was comparing 2 meters with 1 meter. You want me to be making another comparison, but I wasn’t. If you think 2 meters is a 3% increase over 1 meter, you are mad.

You are misrepresenting my original statement, which was:

“If we are going to use misleading percentages then 2 metres is only about 3% of the highest point the seas could reach.”

You are refusing to accept that you are spinning numbers to benefit your own POV.
The 3% figure is based on the fact that 2 metres a very small percentage of the total rise possible across the globe.

It is just as valid figure as your 100%.
Basically both are wrong, the only figures that are correct are the actual physical increases and the global inputs that would lead to them. It is unfortunate that you can not see your own lack of objectivity, you have decided to block out the maximum.

>“If we are going to use misleading percentages then 2 metres
>is only about 3% of the highest point the seas could reach.”
>You are refusing to accept that you are spinning numbers to
>benefit your own POV.

Talk about spinning numbers–we’re talking about 2100, and you’re making a comparison with 67 meters of sea level rise? You must know this is impossible.

Yes, I referenced that research (Pfeffer et al.) earlier in the thread. If you read it, it *limits* the sea level to a maximum of 2 meters by 2100, and states a more plausibly 0.8 meter limit. They are looking at upper limits, not at certainty, based on possible flow rates.

A few quote from the researchers:

* “increases in excess of 2 meters are physically untenable”

* “a total sea-level rise of about 2 meters by 2100 could occur under physically possible glaciological conditions but only if all variables are quickly accelerated to extremely high limits”

* “more plausible but still accelerated conditions lead to total sea-level rise by 2100 of about 0.8 meter”

Their motivation is clear from the intro: “underestimates will prompt inadequate preparation for change, [but] overestimates will exhaust and redirect resources inappropriately”.

The climateprogress link you provide misrepresents the findings–the title ‘”Most likely” 0.8 to 2.0 meters by 2100′. For an idea of why the researchers believe that 2 meter is their maximum, but one they feel is unlikely:

“For Greenland alone to raise sea level by two meters by 2100, all of the outlet glaciers involved would need to move more than three times faster than the fastest outlet glaciers ever observed, or more than 70 times faster than they presently move. And they would have to start moving that fast today, not 10 years from now.”

Basically, they are approaching the problem as one might approach setting limits on how many points Kobe Bryant might score in a game. Even if he hit every shot he took from anywhere on the court, all 3-pointers, and every possession for the other team was stolen at inbound and thrown to Kobe for his shot, you’d have to still allow for the time the ball traveled in the air, the shot motion, the inbound/steal/pass… you could figure a 10-second cycle is the fastest possible, and say Kobe could not score more than 864 points, but you’d also probably add that over 100 is not very likely, even in the best of circumstances. These are not predictions, but limits. He could go into that game and score 26, his average.

Climateprogress is implying that the research is picking a likely sea level rise of 0.8 to 2 meters, when in fact they make it clear that 2 meters is a calculated but unlikely case, and 0.8 is a more reasonable limit (if the significant warming/melting predictions occur). The title of the research paper is “Kinematic Constraints on Glacier Contributions to 21st-Century Sea-Level Rise”–“constraints”, not predictions.

The funny thing is that this research is being referenced by both sides–the skeptics in order to show how absurd the extreme predications from folks like Hansen and Gore are.

>I quoted President Obama because it demonstrates that
>your brand of denial is no longer relevant to the conversation.

I’m fully comfortable with the fact that politicians will push this, right or wrong. I don’t know why that’s relevant to this blog post, unless you want to digress into the merits of carbon trading, carbon taxes, and other government mandates.

>that’s what one of the best climate scientists [Hansen] on the planet is saying

He also talked of 20 feet sea level rise by the end of the century–at odds with the other research you cited. Moreover, Hansen has spoken of his decision to become and advocate, as opposed to a questioning scientist. At this point he’s a bureaucrat. He’s a serial exaggerator. He’s been rewarded well for his position, and threatens those who don’t hold his view (calling for high crimes trial for oil execs, etc.). Believe him if you want. I don’t. [1]

>When does reality supersede the desire for what you want to be true?

Reality is what is happening now. You can’t call your speculations about 2100 “reality”.
—-

[1] Not him, but the science he offers. Yes I understand that the Denier dogma is faith driven, but climate science is not.

Hansen presents accurate reporting of the facts and rational interpretations of the empirical evidence, things utterly absent in the Denier camp.
Mike

Whether the global warming theory is true or false doesn’t matter; it’s “arrogant”, so we should reject it!

Whether DavidONE is right or wrong doesn’t matter; he’s “condescending”, so we should ignore him!

This was right on the money:

Even if I knew nothing of the science behind ACC, I could read just a few comments from someone like you [codehead] and see immediately where the truth lies. All you’ve got is weasely rhetoric, avoidance, dissembling and transparent dishonesty.

frankbi said:
>Whether the global warming theory is true or false doesn’t matter; it’s “arrogant”, so we should reject it!

Are you referring to me? Please tell me where I said that.

>Whether DavidONE is right or wrong doesn’t matter; he’s “condescending”, so we should ignore him

I made a comment on how he talks to people who don’t share his views. “Wrong. As always.”, “weasely”, “dishonest”, “bullshit”… I didn’t say anyone should ignore him. Your post is all about putting words in my mouth (see “straw man”). Talk about dishonesty.

2) Some people read Scientific reticence and sea level rise and say that Hansen predicted +20 feet in 2100. He didn’t, he was mainly warning of the general problem of prediction in the presence of nonlinear effects you’re only just beginning to see.

3) Just before he gave the AGU talk, he gave a shorter one for a general audience at our little town’s town center, and a few of us had dinner with him beforehand, so got to ask lots of questions. He is in many ways more convincing in person than on paper… because:

a) He talks calmly (mid-west style, he is from Iowa, not prone to exaggeration), with classic scientific caveating, but clearly, about terrifying things.

b) He has grandchildren and clearly cares about what happens to them, as he thinks they’re young enough they might be alive in 2100.

c) And of course, he’s been right a lot of times, early.
It’s too bad we’ve had an administration that wanted to abandon science whenever inconvenient.

“The business-as-usual scenario, which could lead to an eventual sea level rise of eighty feet, with twenty feet or more per century…”

You could argue that he didn’t mean this century, and I’m fine with that, although he was a consultant to Gore’s movie, where Al implied such a rise as being near term.

Many sources connect Hansen with the “several meters by 2100″ idea. Perhaps they are wrong–I can’t find his exact words. One source here uses the word “could” and another uses the word “will” (personally, I doubt that he said “will”, unless it was qualified):

For frankbi: As for me calling Hansen “names”, “bureaucrat” is a description of his position. “Serial exaggerator” is my opinion–maybe I could have used kinder words. It’s not like I called him a “liar”, “fool”, or “big fat dodo”, though. You implied I was an “inactivist” early on–I didn’t take offense. Obviously, I’ve been called worse on this board.

Hansen has spoken of his decision to become and advocate, as opposed to a questioning scientist. At this point he’s a bureaucrat. He’s a serial exaggerator. He’s been rewarded well for his position, and threatens those who don’t hold his view (calling for high crimes trial for oil execs, etc.).

I’m sure you were merely ‘describing’ “his position”, rather than using the term as a coded slur. Yeah.

“Serial exaggerator” is my opinion — maybe I could have used kinder words.

So when you said “He’s a serial exaggerator” you really meant “I think he exaggerates a lot”? Rather than, again, using the term as a blatant insult?

Strange that you cry foul loudly when someone “implied” something bad about your arguments, yet most of your remarks about Hansen are nothing but slurs and attacks on his person and you have to make up a ton of excuses for those, eh?

Hansen has spoken of his decision to become and advocate, as opposed to a questioning scientist. At this point he’s a bureaucrat. He’s a serial exaggerator. He’s been rewarded well for his position, and threatens those who don’t hold his view (calling for high crimes trial for oil execs, etc.).

I’m sure you were merely ‘describing’ “his position”, rather than using the term as a coded slur. Yeah.

“Serial exaggerator” is my opinion — maybe I could have used kinder words.

So when you said “He’s a serial exaggerator” you really meant “I think he exaggerates a lot”? Rather than, again, using the term as a blatant insult?

Strange that you cry foul loudly when someone “implied” something bad about your arguments, yet most of your remarks about Hansen are nothing but slurs and attacks on his person and you have to make up a ton of excuses for those, eh?

_Implied_? My _arguments_? The words were “your bullshit”, “weasely rhetoric”, “avoidance”, “dissembling and transparent dishonesty”… I think they were aimed at me, and were more direct than implied. And… they happened before I called Hansen a bureaucrat, which he is, and serial exaggerator. The former is a simple fact, that latter I probably would have chosen more diplomatic wording, but the tone of this board was already set. Sorry I hurt your feelings but disparaging your hero. At least I didn’t do anything distasteful like calling you an idiot or something.

>Talk about spinning numbers–we’re talking about 2100, and >you’re making a comparison with 67 meters of sea level rise? >You must know this is impossible.

Paul repeats from the post being commented on:

“Basically both are wrong, the only figures that are correct are the actual physical increases and the global inputs that would lead to them.”

I was using the 3% figure knowing it was not realistic, it is clear to everyone else here that i was demonstrating that you used the 100% figure to spin your view. I clearly pointed out that a sea level rise of 2 cm is 100% greater than 1cm to make that very point. eg, it is meaningless.
That is the whole point of all the posts i have made on this issue.

It is unfortunate that I have to repeat this just because you are belligerent and can not see that you are at fault.

> At least I didn’t do anything distasteful like calling you an idiot or something.

Well done. You’ve won a small, moral victory. It’s all you’ve won.

Your output has been a stream of nit-picking and bluster while carefully avoiding any science that you have no response to. You’ve ignored the vast majority of what people have written and focused on semantics or . Now you’re playing the poor victim – a very common ploy for those with nothing left to use.

Your entire tactic seems to be “person X possibly said Y – that was wrong, therefore all the science is wrong”. Although, your commentary is so fact-free, it’s not easy detecting what it is you believe or deny. Lots of words, little content. Of course, we know why this is – if you communicated clearly, you’d then need to justify your position with science and evidence – and you have neither.

P.S. I didn’t miss the fact that you issued a challenge, I accepted and you’ve ignored it since. You’re a coward as well as dishonest.

That seems to be what’s happening with Deniers, such as codehead. They’re happy with all the science that benefits them, but as soon as it conflicts with their unrestricted consumption, politics or religion, the science is suddenly bogus or a global conspiracy.

I can perhaps add something useful here, as I actually spent a couple of hours listening to Jim Hansen speak and answer questions from the audience. This was just a month ago, when Hansen spoke in Portola Valley, the day before the AGU meeting in San Francisco. I’ll cut-n-past the summary I made at the time:

I got to sit in the front row (back in student days I’d be in the back row so that I could quietly leave if thing were boring, now my terrible hearing makes me get to where I can lip read easily).

There were about 150 people, with the Mayor doing the intro. As I glanced along at the people in my row, I noticed the father reading this weeks Nature and the teen daughter reading popular science (the Gleik Chaos book).

Hansen came on, and quickly impressed by his style. He was mostly talking through slides, with a dispassionate summation of what the data were telling us. Not the bored high school geography teacher who can’t be bothered anymore, more the air of someone who could see that of course the data tell us this, and that it’s important to just look and see what’s there.

I made a few notes but this is mostly from memory, so I may have some of the order wrong and be missing part of the argument.

The talk was titled “Climate threat to the planet – implications for intergenerational equity and justice”. Hansen has a new grandson, and per later parts of the talk was worried about what kind of world we’ll be leaving for him.

First, a statement of the obvious. The huge, huge gap between what is understood (by science) and what is known (by politicians and the public).

Then a mention of inertia. The oceans take decades to warm up. Even if we stopped adding CO2 today, there is a large amount of warming in the pipeline. Mention of the difficulty of getting non-scientists to get a feel for the danger. The gradual year on year trend is masked by year to year variability, and the inertia means that by the time things are undeniably obvious it may be too late. Notion of tipping points. There are some things that, once well started, cannot be reversed – Greenland or Antarctic melting. But there are other things that can be reversed – arctic sea ice. Therefore worry about any changes that are irreversible, that would be “tipping points”.

Good News/Bad News. The bad news is that on with today’s more refined understanding of paleoclimate data and observations of what’s happened in the last few decades, the best estimate for a safe upper limit for CO2 is 350 ppm. Current levels are above that and rising fast – oops. The good news is that the amount of inertia in the system means that we can overshoot that limit – as long as we get the levels back down again fairly quickly.

Mention that there’s a widespread misunderstanding in contrarian circles about how the AGW people get to their numbers. Models are a long way down the list. Top of the list is looking at paleoclimate. Records from ice cores. Graph showing multiple variables – CO2 / temperature / ice extent. Earth’s climate being exquisitely balanced. Earth’s orbit changing over tens of thousands of years due to Jupiter/Saturn gravitational effects. A one degree change in axis, giving slightly more solar input in summer, less in winter, being enough to nudge climate. A slight warming leading to outgassing of CO2 and ice loss, leading to more warming, more outgassing, more ice loss. Do the sums. Albedo change accounts for about half the warming, CO2 greenhouse for the other half, the original nudge from orbital change almost swamped by the positive feedbacks. (Note for the people saying warming comes first – yes, it’s part of the AGW case)

Quantitative stuff on forcing. One watt per sq meter change in input gives three quarters of a degree Celsius temperature change. Confirmed by multiple lines of evidence. Ice cores. Earth temps of 50 million years back. Forcing differs due to extra CO2, reduced solar (sun as main sequence star in normal evolution, I think that made it 0.5% dimmer than today), no ice caps to reflect. Do the numbers – again 0.75C per W/m2.

New picture. CO2 forcing well understood. Aerosols not well understood. Add together well understood positive effect of CO2 (expect a +3), not well understood negative effect of aerosols (expect a -1 to -2) and you end up with perhaps a 1W/m2 forcing, perhaps a 2W/m2 forcing (the graphs are fuzzier but you get the idea).

This is very worrying. The effects we’re seeing today could be from just a one watt forcing. Aerosols are from dirty coal burning etc. Sooner or later the producers will slow down (as the Chinese get richer they’ll insist on not choking to death in smog). The aerosols last about five days in the atmosphere before they’re washed out. CO2 persistence is different – new graph. Quick initial uptake, mostly by the ocean. As the ocean concentration increases, CO2 transfer starts going both ways, net absorption slows to a crawl. At least 20% of the CO2 still there after a thousand years.

Put this together. If the numbers turn out lucky, reduced aerosols would bump us from 2 to 3 watts per square meter. If unlucky, from 1 to 3, a tripling. At the moment, we just don’t know (though best guess would be something in the middle).

So, any effects we’re seeing now are only early stages of what’s in the pipeline (inertia) and we’ve only been nudging the pipeline by perhaps half the amount that we’re already committed to.

Going back to paleolclimate. Earth with 1000ppm CO2. What changed? Plate tectonics. India plowing through the Tethys sea until it hit Asia and made the Himalayas. Carbonate rich seafloor rocks converted via volcanism to CO2 emissions. India crunching to a halt – no more emissions. Weathering gradually taking carbonate back via rivers to sea floor. A change of 0.0001 parts per million every year – but over geological time that’s enough to change from the world of 50 million years back with 1000ppm to the world we inherited, with perhaps 250ppm on average.

Compare the natural change of 0.0001ppm every year with the 2 or 3ppm per year change due to humans.Put this together. If the numbers turn out lucky, reduced aerosols would bump us from 2 to 3 watts per square meter. If unlucky, from 1 to 3, a tripling. At the moment, we just don’t know (though best guess would be something in the middle).

So, any effects we’re seeing now are only early stages of what’s in the pipeline (inertia) and we’ve only been nudging the pipeline by perhaps half the amount that we’re already committed to.

Going back to paleolclimate. Earth with 1000ppm CO2. What changed? Plate tectonics. India plowing through the Tethys sea until it hit Asia and made the Himalayas. Carbonate rich seafloor rocks converted via volcanism to CO2 emissions. India crunching to a halt – no more emissions. Weathering gradually taking carbonate back via rivers to sea floor. A change of 0.0001 parts per million every year – but over geological time that’s enough to change from the world of 50 million years back with 1000ppm to the world we inherited, with perhaps 250ppm on average.

Compare the natural change of 0.0001ppm every year with the 2 or 3ppm per year change due to humans.Put this together. If the numbers turn out lucky, reduced aerosols would bump us from 2 to 3 watts per square meter. If unlucky, from 1 to 3, a tripling. At the moment, we just don’t know (though best guess would be something in the middle).

So, any effects we’re seeing now are only early stages of what’s in the pipeline (inertia) and we’ve only been nudging the pipeline by perhaps half the amount that we’re already committed to.

Going back to paleolclimate. Earth with 1000ppm CO2. What changed? Plate tectonics. India plowing through the Tethys sea until it hit Asia and made the Himalayas. Carbonate rich seafloor rocks converted via volcanism to CO2 emissions. India crunching to a halt – no more emissions. Weathering gradually taking carbonate back via rivers to sea floor. A change of 0.0001 parts per million every year – but over geological time that’s enough to change from the world of 50 million years back with 1000ppm to the world we inherited, with perhaps 250ppm on average.

Compare the natural change of 0.0001ppm every year with the 2 or 3ppm per year change due to humans. Move to policy implications.
Histogram for fossil fuels – used to date plus reserves. The scale on the vertical axis is for resulting CO2 ppm.

Conventional oil is perhaps half gone and to some extent will take care of itself.

The huge and obvious problem is coal. Only a fraction of reserves used, if all used then we’re into huge CO2 emissions.

Overwhelming need to phase out coal asap.

If we don’t – wander into what is fair and equitable for future generations. Would concentrate on what is irreversible – extinctions and ice sheet melting. As the newer generations work out what we’ve left to them, what will their reaction be? I took it that he hoped/expected greater awareness would force politicians to meaningful action.

Moratorium on any new coal plants. Perhaps new ones if carbon capture, but that seems a bit of a mirage.

Urgency of action. Mention of the UK protest where he was an expert witness. Greenpeace activists arrested for trespass and criminal damage – and the jury acquitted them after accepting that they were acting to prevent a greater harm (kind of like the justifiable homicide).

Mention of somewhat similar West Virginia case that didn’t come to trial.

The countries most responsible for getting us where we are today are the UK, USA and Germany. They should be the ones to lead in getting us out.

Alternatives. The big win is efficiency. Not keen on nuclear due to waste – not happy with Yucca mountain. But then – maybe fourth generation breeder reactors. Use more of the fuel, convert to shorter half life waste. May or may not be good, but should do the research.

Aside – no unconventional fossil fuels on the histogram – because if we start touching the oil shales etc then we’re already in deep trouble.

Policy. My take on listening to him is that it’s ironic how much he’s been attacked by the right and/or libertarian fringe, because it seems to me that his basic instincts are very libertarian – just libertarian modified by the need for some kind of concerted action. So make the concerted action the most efficient and least onerous.

Proposals:
1) A large and growing tax on carbon, at oil well or coal mine, or at point of entry.
2) One hundred percent dividend. Send the money straight back to the people, in equal size checks. Let the efficient people make a profit. Make a constituency (the people making a profit) whose interests align with virtue (increased penalties for fossil fuel use).
3) Limit the role of government. Hands off our money. Eliminate subsidies. Let the marketplace choose winners. Changing profit motivation of utilities.

Hugely, hugely skeptical of cap and trade and suchlike. People making paper profits while doing nothing positive. Politicians setting targets they have no real intent of achieving. Germany promising much but new coal plants. Japan signing up for Kyoto but making minimal progress. He didn’t quite use the word “charade” but that’s how I can best summarize his take.

Q and A session

Q on tax, main extra in answer was the point that individuals can’t really make a difference. Lower your demand and the price drops, so other people will make up the difference. (Geoff aside – much as the Europeans held or cut gasoline usage in the Nineties, and the USA had the SUV boom driven by cheap gas).

Q how to get more public awareness, mention of Fifties and “doomsday clock”
A didn’t pick up chance for generic waffle or inspirational talk as a politician would, instead picked the narrow topic of the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists and their gradual move to take environmental considerations into account.

Q on energy sources
A order is efficiency, then renewables, then maybe 4th gen nuclear. Critical of Clinton/Gore for cutting research. Mention again of how bad coal is. Mercury pollution, already mustn’t eat too much fish.

Q on academics serving on Exxon board, is this incompatible with academic standing, what to do?
A can’t blame companies for making a profit. Would hope academics would give good counsel, but need political/legal change to make meaningful difference.

Q trying to control things via deliberate injection of aerosols.
A (not the doctrinaire no that one would expect from a professional environmentalist) More efficient at high latitudes. Expensive – estimated at 10 billion per year a decade or two back when looked at then. Nasty effect of SO2. Better by far to avoid the CO2 in the first place, but shouldn’t dismiss aerosol injection as a last resort.

Q opinion on new energy secretary
A Chu is an outstanding pick. He understands the issues, not a bureaucrat with the bureaucrat priorities of a quiet life of empire building. Very hopeful, need to see if he can be effective.

Closed with organizer pointing out that Hansen is addressing the American Geophysical Union tomorrow and still has work to do. Which all makes it slightly surreal that he was doing such a small town hall meeting.

DavidONE:
Thanks for posting the notes.
Yes, the Portola Valley visit is the one I was alluding to, and the slides were a subset of the ones he used at AGU that I linked to.
We were going to take him to dinner at a nice restaurant across the road, but time got tight, so it was sandwiches&sodas in the town center for him and 4 of us from PV :-) Note that he has dinner with Chu occasionally, so his opinion is firsthand.

I’ll add an extra note on the “academics on ExxonMobil board”. Someone asked that, *obviously* expecting an answer like “No, they shouldn’t do that, ExxonMobil is evil” … but Hansen gave the much more rational, non-doctrinaire comment posted. Remember that he expects us to use all the conventional oil & gas we can get [as in Kharecha & Hansen paper], but really worries about coal and tar sands/shale oil.

As for surreal…
Portola Valley is a small town (~4500 people), but has peculiar demographics & connections, and a very-green town center (LEED Gold at least) opened mid-2008. We run a sustainability lecture series, of which Amory Lovins was the first speaker a few months ago, and then Hansen.

March 3, we have Mathis Wackernagel, and these are open to the public, not just PV residents. If you don’t know him, he’s easy enough to Google :-)

franki: I wrote that last post quickly, eager to get to bed after being up 22 hours, and as my finger hit Enter, I thought, “oops”. I looked for an email link to as Mike to nix that last sentence, because it implied a lot more than I intended. In a message to Dan Pangburn, DavidONE finished his post, “QED – you’re an idiot.” So I said at least I’m not calling you an idiot (like David called Dan). I realized quickly that it implied that I am calling you an idiot but it was too late. I apologize for the way that came out–I don’t feel anyone with a different point of view in this is an idiot.

Paul: Sorry for misattributing a comment to you.

I’m going to bow out. My original post embodies the only question I had about the blog post, and I’ve been enlightened a bit on that end. At this point, things like arguing whether 2 meters is 100% greater than 1 meter and whether “bureaucrat” was was meant as a slur are taking up too much bandwidth.

> …I don’t feel anyone with a different point of view in this is an idiot.

That explains a lot. The reality of ACC has nothing to do with ‘point of view’, just cold, hard science. And those people who are denying the science are some combination of ignorant, dishonest, deluded and stupid.

> I’m going to bow out.

Having contributed absolutely nothing to the conversation. You provided nothing substantive, just quibbled over semantics and intent, reduced one of the pre-eminent climate scientists in the world in to a ‘bureaucrat’, repeatedly ducked my acceptance of *your* challenge, bleated about how mean I am and then scurried off. Pathetic.

At risk of being attacked myself, I think the ‘bureaucrat’ comment and the reaction to it has been rather overworked by all parties, at this point. Of course it was pejorative, and no one needs to get out a dictionary to understand that you meant he tows a line in keeping with government interests and the concentration of interests and authority that goes with all that, etc. But it is also silly, in my view, and deserves as little attention as possible.

You did start with reasonable questions.

At the same time, you chose not to take time to see what there was to learn from the answer(s) that you received.

It’s important to listen, rather than rushing ahead to the next thing you want to say in defense of ego (sorry).

For example, Chris’s comments suggest an interest in the dynamics of social change and social change theories. Your comment was lacking in political understanding, and pointless.

It went downhill from there, with a lack of understanding of the science, more pointlessness, and a refusal to take the time to see if there was something new to learn.

I do, however, commend you for recognizing that things were getting silly. I don’t disagree with you there.

Of course it [“bureaucrat”] was pejorative, and no one needs to get out a dictionary to understand that you meant he tows a line in keeping with government interests and the concentration of interests and authority that goes with all that, etc. But it is also silly, in my view, and deserves as little attention as possible.

No attack, but just a quick explanation: it’s not just ‘one word’, but the combined effect of lots of such ‘one-words’. A common tactic of inactivists is to blow an entire cloud of vague insinuations without a single concrete accusation (I’ve written about this here and here), and codehead’s paragraph against Hansen is just another example of this.

However, I think the best study of tactics needs to include observations about dynamics.

codehead seems to me to be a techie who likes science but has concerns about the institutionalization of science. His remark re. Hansen came after a remark expressing concerns about the bureaucracy of science (fair enough, science exists in the context of other interests) and escalating heat in the interpesonal communications. I his Hansen remark was a particularly strong effort of the sort that we should consider a ‘tactic’ on its own, or that reflects the tactics of denialism. Some things are just an individual’s stupid opinion. But as I say, I understand your point — in which case, our defense of Hansen as a pre-eminent scientists (which of course he is) isn’t an especially strong observation or argument, either. Lots of important and well-positioned people are fools.

It is often possible to intervene on dynamics such as power struggle, recognize a miscommunication, or contest denialism, by identifying the underlying beliefs or assumptions.

I would agree that what you describe is a tactic in the hands of someone like Dan P. That is why I focused on him.

Avoiding power struggles that prolong the attention given to a denier, and correctly identifying their unbelievable assumptions, is a counter-strategy that I find highly effective.

> I think the ‘bureaucrat’ comment and the reaction to it has been rather overworked by all parties,

No, a passionate response to someone dismissing Hansen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hansen) as a ‘bureaucrat’ is not ‘overworked’. It’s a proportionate response to someone who is so devoid of evidence-based argument that all they have left is ad hominem.#1

> You did start with reasonable questions.

In the same way that many Deniers (of ACC, evolution, etc.) do. They start with questions that make it appear they have an honest interest in the subject. They keep asking questions, but it becomes abundantly clear (sooner or later – depending on how long you’ve been arguing with these people) that the questions are only being used to find slivers of semantics or deliberate misrepresentation (see codehead’s reaction to my using Earth / Venus in same sentence) to be used as ‘argument’.

> I do, however, commend you for recognizing that things were getting silly.

No, not ‘silly’. That’s an attempt to reduce the ‘debate’ to a childish disagreement. I’ve already described codehead’s behaviour. His intellectual dishonesty here is totally apparent and I see no need for false civility.

codehead is a liar and a coward. Dan is delusional. I don’t say these things to persuade them – nothing will persuade these two of the truth because it conflicts with one of their core beliefs and / or deep sense of entitlement. Same applies for all Deniers.#2 The vast majority are beyond reason, evidence and science – because they came to their conclusions without the use of any of them (or went to a source that produces pseudo-science and have accepted it ever since because otherwise they’d need to admit they had been fooled).

However, the people that it does reach are those who can differentiate science from propaganda. I’m optimistic that is the majority of people. The neocon / libertarian / conspiracy wingnut gang are noisy and relentless, but I don’t think they’re advancing their cause much – just reinforcing their own flight from reality.

> codehead seems to me to be a techie who likes science…

And yet studiously ignores all that is put in front of him and provides nothing in return. No, he doesn’t like science other than as product of all the modern luxuries he enjoys.

> …science exists in the context of other interests…

No, again. Science just is. Water boils at 100C, all life on this planet evolved from a common ancestor, CO2 heats the planet. Science. The fact that many people (those who don’t like what it tells them) attempt to politicise it or dismiss the IPCC as a purely political organisation (and the front for the NWO!) are either totally ignorant or shamelessly dishonest in not recognising the IPCC reports are built on mountains of peer-reviewed literature. They don’t – can’t – attack the science (other than with lies), so they attempt to discredit the communication apparatus.

> Lots of important and well-positioned people are fools.

Damn straight. And if Hansen is one of them, the ‘sceptics’ will have no problem dismantling his *science*. We’re still waiting on that one.

> Avoiding power struggles that prolong the attention given to a denier, …

Without calling people like codehead out, he would be here for weeks, weaselling around, cherry-picking and dissembling.

> …correctly identifying their unbelievable assumptions, is a counter-strategy that I find highly effective.

Effective how? What are codeheads assumptions? Which part(s) of the science does he reject? His input to this conversation was devoid of substance. And it’s not by accident – he knows if he makes any substantive claims he would be metaphorically lynched by the peer-reviewed science.

Cheers.

#1 As almost no one seems to understand the meaning of ‘ad hominem’, I’ll make clear. Calling someone a moron is not ad hominem. Calling someone a bureaucrat, in the hope that you weaken their argument, is.

#2 I’ve seen one person in the past ~three years openly admit that he was initially fooled by the ExxonMobil / neocon propaganda machine.

Oh… I left because I was “called out”… can’t leave on that note, if your impression is that I left because I was “exposed” or something…

My key point on Hansen was that he admitted that at a point he made the decision to become an advocate, focusing on the danger potential, and not simply being a scientist (equally questioning that). He explained this in an interview–I’m sorry I don’t have a reference for it. Secondarily, this choice made him what I referred to as a “serial exaggerator”–he is not going to ever tell you that the outcome might not turn out so bad, even though he must know this is a possibility. His choice as an advocate guarantees that he will always speak to the extremes of what he thinks is possible. As for “bureaucrat”–well, he is. An example of why this is relevant to DavidONE’s reference that elicited by comment about Hansen (“President ‘has four years to save the Earth'”):

That is, there is no scientific basis in this assertion, just a opinion based on politics. That is not to say he is not possibly right, so please don’t come back with arguments that he is right–that is not the point. The point is that the four years are not the result of calculations, research, data, experiments, graphs, and charts. It’s purely Hansen’s opinion based on bureaucratic and political expectations–he feels that Obama has a Presidential term in which to swing the nation into action, and subsequently encourage the world to follow. Maybe this is laudable, but it’s not science. So I don’t feel my comment qualifies as an an hominem argument–I just gave my opinion of a guy giving his opinion.

But finally, on the subject of “ad hominem” in general, as a tactic of “deniers”… you *know* that if I–just as an example–referred to specific work by Richard Lindzen, the resulting replies would not be about that work, but about the man, about big tobacco, about oil. John Christy. Fred Singer. Roy Spencer. Does anyone feel their blood pressure rising? Any negative thoughts along the lines of “big oil”, big tobacco”, “creationist”? The point is, to be so sensitive of what I said about Hansen, and call it a “denier” tactic–please, let’s be realistic. We all know that references to skeptical scientists are often greeted with ad hominem responses. (BTW, from DavidONE: “Discount Monckton really is the comedy gift that keeps on giving.”) It’s no secret that even the term “denier”, used here so freely, is a reference to “holocaust denier”, implying the person’s argument should be dismissed without consideration.

That’s the end of what I’m going to say about Hansen (I might discuss his scientific work, but that’s it for discussing my opinion of the man).

Martha: Thanks for your level-headed input. Regarding you comment, “At the same time, you chose not to take time to see what there was to learn from the answer(s) that you received”, I did in fact learn something (it was just obscured in defending myself on the sillier issues). I got a better idea of what AGW believers expect, and why they don’t seem to follow the IPCC on that issue. In the beginning, I was surprised with Mike’s ready acceptance of 2 meters (what I mean by “ready acceptance” is that he didn’t even feel it was questionable enough to cite any scientific reference in his blog post–the reason for my original comment on the topic). Now I have a better idea of where that comes from. At the same time, other research I cited gives reasons 2 meters by 2100 strains the bounds of physical possibility, and is unlikely, but at least I accept how Mike came up with the 2 meters to begin with.

Well, you know that’s not true. Put co2 in an enclosed space, as an experiment–it will not heat the space. In comparison, you state “water boils at 100C” (only at average sea level, btw) in order to show how fundamental and simple the (incorrect) assertion that “co2 heats the planet” is. Your implication seems to be that this is a simple scientific fact, that anyone who can’t see it is a denier of fact, and it’s not. (A little closer assertion would be something like “co2 absorbs a certain range of reflected infrared radiation, slowing its escape into space”–that’s not very elegant and I could do better if I gave it more consideration, but it’s closer.)

But more importantly, I don’t think there is much denial that co2 raises the temperature of the planet. The question is more of how much, and whether it is dangerous. It’s the 20-foot sea level rise scenarios that I’m skeptical of. I’m even skeptical of 2 meters by 2100. I’m skeptical that positive feedbacks will cause temperature changes that far exceed what is understood to be possible from co2 increases alone (all of the extreme scenarios rely on positive feedbacks–co2’s effect if logarithmic, and it’s impossible for man to free enough co2 into the atmosphere for such extremes to be possible). Look–I’m not saying this to start a side argument on positive feedback or anything else. I’m saying this to point out that you are misrepresenting the skeptics’ position.

Skeptics are not skeptical that co2 is a greenhouse gas. They are skeptical that it is a significant problem. They are skeptical that combatting this problem, with the possibility of mass suffering and starvation as a side effect, is a good idea. Again, don’t come back with a tangential argument that AGW will cause more suffering and starvation–I respect your feelings on that too. My point is that you are misrepresenting the skeptical view by saying that we deny fundamental science (water boils at 100C, co2 heats the planet). You are posing a straw man argument.

> Well, you know that’s not true. Put co2 in an enclosed space, as an experiment–it will not heat the space.

It returns with deliberate and malicious misrepresentation. I referred to “the planet”. Guess which one. Until the big, yellow ball nearby goes out or engulfs us, “CO2 warms the planet” is incontrovertible science, you dishonest little weasel.

> …you are misrepresenting the skeptical view by saying that we deny fundamental science (water boils at 100C, co2 heats the planet).

You just said “you know that’s not true”. Now you say it’s fundamental science. Which is it? Don’t worry about it – it’s tough keeping your story straight when you need to lie in order to try and win an argument.

Happy that you’ve spent some time researching. Maybe one of these days you will learn something of value. Unfortunately, not yet because you still haven’t worked out what ‘ad hominem’ is. My mocking of Monckton is not part of an argument (therefore not ‘ad hom’) against his claims. No need for it to be. His fantasy ‘science’ has been thoroughly dismantled and discredited – http://www.altenergyaction.org/Monckton.html

> Skeptics are not skeptical that co2 is a greenhouse gas.

Your understanding of what the Deniers believe is as complete as your understanding of anthropogenic climate change.

Good grief–can you honestly not parse this? I was careful to use your *exact* words (“water boils at 100C”, and “co2 heats the planet”), to emphasize that these were _your_ points, that _you_ labeled “Science.” One more time: “you… are saying that we deny fundamental science… [following in parenthesis are examples given by DavidONE as “Science.”:] (water boils at 100C, co2 heats the planet).” (The first point being true, at sea level, the second being incorrect.) I don’t know why this confused you, since I was clear that about the co2-heating issue.

But this is, again, giving far too much weight to silliness. It’s unimportant whether you said “CO2 warms the planet”, or something more accurate about the effects of co2 versus temperature. The point is that skeptics, including skeptical scientists, do not argue that more co2 might make a warmer planet. They are skeptical that it is a significant problem, that the seas will rise 20 feet because of it–things like that.

Let me put it this way. If someone said to me that if enough people are put in a room, the room would get hot enough to start a fire, I would disagree. If they subsequently claim that I deny that a person’s body temperature can increase the temperature of a room, and that additional people would raise it further, they would be misrepresenting my skepticism. The reason I would be skeptical is that I would expect the maximum temperature to be associated with the average body temperature of the people it the room, as it moves towards capacity, not because I don’t believe that body temperature can raise the room temperature.

But maybe I’m totally wrong–maybe skeptical scientists (Christy, etc.) don’t believe fundamental science. If so, you can provide me with links, I’m sure. But I don’t think so. For example, I do know that Lindzen believes that additional co2 in the atmosphere will result in higher average temperatures for the planet. However, he believes that the forcing is smaller in magnitude that others. Additionally, he is skeptical of argument that amplify this contribution–amplification that is essential to catastrophic scenarios. He is certainly considered an AGW skeptic, but to say that he denies co2’s connection with planetary temperature would be ludicrous–a misrepresentation of his opinion.

Many of you allude to science as though it proves AGW while you are actually unaware of the science that proves that added atmospheric carbon dioxide has no significant influence on climate. Learn about the relevant science. In Wikipedia it is called Control Theory. It is also called Control Systems Theory. There are lots of texts on the subject. Tch! Tch! It took an old retired engineer to identify the missing science.

Many web sites are listed in my prior posts for those who actually want to see real data instead of opinions from those who are unaware of a determining part of the science. But first you need to learn about Control System Theory (CST). In my Jan 22 2:05 AM post I misspoke and called it Dynamic System Theory when I meant Control System Theory (which, however, applies to dynamic systems). The description there might be easier to follow than the one in Wikipedia.

Paul: You appear to know nothing about the science of Control Systems therefore can not perceive what it proves. You also appear to know nothing about engineers or engineering.

Martha: (Is that your real name?) You need to find a crowd to follow that is aware of ALL the relevant science.

DavidONE: When you claim that “…the entire planet’s climatologists are wrong…” I guess that you have not noticed the thousands of climatologists that don’t think that AGW is valid.

It is unfortunate that most climate scientists appear to be unaware of that part of science which is CST. With knowledge of CST it is trivial to prove using the Vostok ice core data that net positive feedback does not exist in earth’s climate and added atmospheric carbon dioxide does not significantly contribute to increased average global temperature.

In resorting to ad hominem attack it appears that you have expended your knowledge on the science issue.

I think if we care about science, we should ensure that we have a critical, accurate analysis of the social context within which modern science has both been forced to become an establishment, and successfully resisted it.

Science is not value-neutral in its interpretations. Hansen recognizes that the climate change issue is inherently political (it is not just about the science). He is intent on galvanizing public opinion and this is justified by the objective evidentiary science and also by the political nature of decision-making with respect to the climate crisis.

>>effective how?

Depends on goals, I guess. I think you play right into denialist hands by giving them so much air time, and excuses to defend themselves against insults.

Yes, asking reasonable questions can be a strategy. However, it’s happened several times on this site that someone was just asking a question because they actually didn’t know the answer. Civility can help clarify first impressions.

But I see codehead has visited again, so first impressions are wearing thin and he is here to re-charge his batteries with more sparring.

Try to wrap it up quicker this time?

I also see Dan has re-visited. Why do you think he wonders if my name is in fact my name? He isn’t wondering that about anyone else. Bizarre. Or sexist.

>> As almost no one seems to understand the meaning of ad hominem

I do. My comment was about insults, sarcasm and power struggles, and how ineffective they seem to be in your dealings, here.

But were you suggesting that codehead made an ad hominem argument? He did, when he said Hansen’s opinion on the science couldn’t be trusted because 1) codehead thinks it is inconsistent to be both a scientist and an advocate, and 2) codehead imagines Hansen is self-interested. Codehead was attempting to reject Hansen’s opinion by attacking him in these ways.

However, as I suggested, I don’t see that it’s worth all the attention it was receiving, because as with all ad hominem arguments, it is extremely weak. It is possible for someone to have a very good scientific opinion but bad advocacy opinions; or for someone to have a very good scientific opinion and get a benefit from having that opinion. Etc. You see, it tells us nothing about the scientific opinion. It’s a bad argument, not worth attention except to point out the glaring errors in reasoning.

Of course, Hansen is a highly credible scientist and a highly credible advocate; and he makes a living.

Codehead’s reservations about bureaucracy in science are not without a crumb of substance, and I acknowledge that. However, he is unable to put together an argument that can be taken seriously, and the fact that science is part of society is hardly a deal-breaking observation.

Dan Pangburn…
A retired engineer, good for you. I have a bit to go before I can do the same. Retire that is…
But since you are a retired engineer I suppose it would be safe to say that you have no formal training in the climate sciences? No degree in these sciences to hang your hat on as it were?
If this is true…you are at best, merely offering an opinion.
An opinion that I will ignore in favour of those who do have the training and have expert knowledge gained from years of experience in the climate sciences.

Martha said:
>He [codehead] did, when he said Hansen’s opinion
>on the science couldn’t be trusted…

I said, “Believe him if you want. I don’t.” The link provided, to which I was replying, was not about Hansen’s scientific work. It was about Hansen telling Obama he has four years in which to save the Earth. If you can produce a scientific study by Hansen, in which he determines the four year window, I might change my mind; otherwise, Hansen’s statements were political. And about his 20-foot sea level in a century, I’ve provided a link to research that indicates that is “physically untenable”. Again, Hansen has said in the past that made a choice to forego the skepticism and balance normally associated with science and become an advocate. I’m not making a judgement here–he said it.

I expect there will be some here who still maintain that there is a threat of 20-foot sea level rise in a century, even through there is a study that says a rise over 2.0 meter is “physically untenable”, and 0.8 is probably a more realistic target if a serious warming scenario plays out. Basically, this means that we are making different choice on which science to believe, not that either one of us is denying science.

>However, he is unable to put together an argument
>that can be taken seriously, and the fact that science
>is part of society is hardly a deal-breaking observation.

Because I haven’t made an attempt in the comments of this blog post about the effects of sea level rise? In between people putting words in my mouth and impugning my character (not referring to you)? On the other side, has anyone here, in this global page, put together an argument for AGW that can be taken seriously? I mean, besides “CO2 heats the planet”? Why hold me to different standards that the true believers?

“Paul: You appear to know nothing about the science of Control Systems therefore can not perceive what it proves. You also appear to know nothing about engineers or engineering.”

Paul said:

Ha, ha.
I have worked as an engineer for many years. The reason i suggest that you focus on what you know, is because you can be of benefit to society by encouraging new ideas and new technology.

The job of a good engineer is to rise up to a challenge and to find solutions to overcome problems that humans come up against. It is one of the most exciting parts of the profession, it is highly creative and inspiring.

Climate change is a major problem that engineers can help to overcome. If you are not challenged as an engineer then you will be left behind.

If you can produce a scientific study by Hansen, in which he determines the four year window, I might change my mind; otherwise, Hansen’s statements were political.

If someone with a speed camera told you that you had 10 seconds to get off the road before you got hit by an on-coming car, would that be a political statement? After all, it’s your right as an individual to stay on the road as long as you damn well please…

Hansen is offering his best estimate, as an expert in the field. If that has political ramifications, then so be it. That doesn’t change the fact that it’s still probably far closer to the truth than stuff you hear elsewhere, and as such, well worth listening to.

I don’t disagree with much of what you’ve written about the science / political divide, but as soon as we begin to discuss politics with regards ACC, it muddies the waters when debating whether or not the basic science of climate change is correct. The Deniers thrive on that – they can swamp the conversation with politics and ignore the science that they claim is false. Additionally, I’m just not a fan of discussing politics – everyone is an expert and it’s near-impossible to prove otherwise. ;)

Yeah, my style of response to people like codehead and Dan may not be the most effective – but I’m not attempting to persuade them. I recognise their style from having spent too much time arguing with Deniers in the past. You could calmly, politely, patiently, courteously debate with them for months and they’d still be twisting, turning and ducking every argument or challenge they cannot answer. They do not have good intentions or intellectual honesty – or perhaps simply do not have the brain power. Who knows?

> …someone was just asking a question because they actually didn’t know the answer.

I’ll very happily help anyone understand the science of ACC and point them to reliable literature. However, I quickly recognised what codehead was doing – and I feel vindicated in that judgement. Does anyone disagree with my assessment of him?

> …were you suggesting that codehead made an ad hominem argument?

No, it was a general statement that, seemingly, almost no one understands what ad hominem means – and despite raising that, both codehead and Dan *still* do not. They think calling someone an idiot or pointing out that they receive massive funding from the largest CO2 ‘manufacturer’ in the world is ‘ad hominem’. For the latter, that might be ad hom if it was the only argument against Lindzen, Soon, Lomborg, Monckton, et al – but it’s not. The ExxonMobil connection gives motive for their dishonesty – great wads of cash. I think people just use it because they think it sounds impressive to throw in a little Latin.

> Why do you think he [Dan] wonders if my name is in fact my name?

Bizarre, eh? It’s an extreme example of what they do – attempt to twist the conversation to anything other than the science.

I’m done with the pair of them now.

Dan is clearly unhinged (“…added atmospheric carbon dioxide has no significant influence on climate.”) and is completely misrepresenting what I said (“When you claim that “…the entire planet’s climatologists are wrong…””).

codehead is just making it up as he goes along – and doing a weak impersonation of an intellectual – “algortithmic” this, “parse” that. He’s inventing semantic structures to explain away his contradictory rambling – who knew that parenthesis in a sentence meant the first contained item was true and the second false?! He’s even quibbling about the boiling temperature of water! Let’s take it in to space, why not?! How about add some oats?!

Mike: I have read enough papers written by climate scientists to realize that a significant part of science has been missing. [1] It appears that most climate scientists (and peer reviewers for relevant publications) are simply unaware of Control System Theory. Thus they do not recognize that the issue of net feedback in earth’s climate is readily answered using CST. [2]They may never accept that they have missed something but eventually they will have to abandon blaming the added atmospheric carbon dioxide for increased average global temperature as the CO2 level continues to rise and the temperature doesn’t. The time lag was addressed but apparently not by anyone that was aware of the science that correctly interprets what it means.[3]

Martha: I am probably a sexist. I notice things like most computer viruses are written by young males, most terrorists are males, most crimes are committed by males, etc. etc. Since most bloggers use phony made-up names it is unusual to see one that actually looks like a name. Your decidedly civil and thoughtful writing sets you apart in my mind although we probably differ substantially on many issues. For instance about Dr. James Hansen (I did not know that he was a fellow Iowan or fellow grandparent or a fellow advocate of fourth generation breeder reactors or a fellow antagonist to using coal). He is obviously a brilliant scientist but it is equally obvious that there is relevant science that he is apparently unaware of.

Tom G: That approach is risky if you really want to uncover the truth because most climate scientists appear to be unaware of significant relevant science. Check it out yourself. But first learn about CST so you can understand what you are looking at.

Paul: I agree wholeheartedly with your assessment of engineering as a rewarding profession. I contributed many new ideas and some new technology during my career and even have a few patents to show for it. One of the things that I know is Control Systems Theory. With this and the data from the Vostok ice cores it is trivial to prove that net positive feedback does not exist in earth’s climate. Thus I know that added atmospheric carbon dioxide does not significantly influence average global temperature. Any effort to reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide to reduce global warming is a waste. I abhor waste.

If you wonder why the planet warmed up (at least until 1998) you might try integrating the area under the sunspot vs. time curve (while subtracting the radiation leaving earth). It provides incite to what is meant by ‘solar grand maximum’. I have seen nothing that indicates that any human activity can have any significant influence on earth’s climate. [4] I have seen and use lots of ways to reduce energy consumption. Repeat, I abhor waste.

There are good reasons to develop ways to eliminate our dependence on fossil fuels; it is just that the rising atmospheric carbon dioxide level is not one of them. There is only so much petroleum and some day it will be gone (although it has been going to run out in ten years for about 50 years now). Coal has issues of mercury and acid rain and the thousands who die horribly every year mining it not to mention the millions more who suffer from the pollution it can cause when technology is lacking.
—-

[1] A vague non-statement that is not in the least bit convincing – cite specific studies where it should have been incorporated and wasn’t, and justify why it should have been.

[2] Systems Theory has been part of all branches of the sciences for decades and decades. Why it should be absent from climate science would be puzzling indeed.

[3] What you have missed is that since CO2 is a greenhouse gas (FACT) and is increasing in the atmosphere (FACT) then even if you were right (doubtful in the extreme) you still have to explain why CO2 is not causing an increase in temperatures.

>The point is that skeptics, including skeptical scientists, do not argue that more co2 might make a warmer planet. They are skeptical that it is a significant problem, that the seas will rise 20 feet because of it–things like that.

That is untrue. The reason that this stance is taken is because by accepting CO2 results in warming a little bit (say 5% of the total) or the CO2 contribution is alleged to have a small impact, appeases those that might have some worries about it but do not want to make changes to their lives.
eg. they are appealing to people to keep the state of play as it is and to delay change.

It is purely political. You are naive if you think there is any science involved in that stance.

No, I don’t need to read whatever alleged science you have put forward to make a safe judgement on your unhinged state. It just requires a little Occam’s Razor. Options:

1. all the climate scientists on the planet are correct – increasing carbon emissions are dangerously warming the planet

2. Dan Pangburn, retired engineer with no climate science training, has found some fundamental flaw or omission that falsifies over a century of accumulated science and observations, from multiple disciplines

It really isn’t difficult for anyone attached to reality to decide which is more likely.

However, when you do show ACC to be a massive mistake / hoax, I’ll look forward to seeing photos of you collecting your Nobel Prize.

2) Move this discussion to the Open Thread as per comment policy – last warning, next post in the wrong thread will be deleted as per policy (and I am selecting those who begin the inappropriate discussions for now).
Mike

I applaud you Mike for answering the many questions from those lacking a basic understanding of the science.

It still stupefies me that people who read very little of the actual peer reviewed science, can come to settled opinion that CO2 is not the cause of the current global warming. I find it rather arrogant that so many people think they have found a loophole to the whole global warming “myth” from their perusing of google searches.

Back to topic. Great article that definitely explains in simple terms all can understand.

[…] Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions are expected to rise dramatically over the next decade, if Alberta . The only way for Canada to continue walking this suicidal path would be for the world’s nations to agree that Canada is a special case, that our unique status allows us to pollute with impunity with nary a care for the damage we’d cause in developing nations. […]

[…] secondary education standards. If proper action is not taken soon to curb our emissions, we will be condemning millions to death by famine. So why has climate change denial not been treated with the same contempt as creation […]

A simple equation based on the physical phenomena involved, with inputs of only sunspot number and ppmv CO2, calculates the average global temperatures (agt) since 1895 with 88.4% accuracy (87.9% if CO2 is assumed to have no influence). The equation, links to the source data, an eye-opening graph of the results and how they are derived are in the pdfs at http://climaterealists.com/index.php?tid=145&linkbox=true (see especially the pdfs made public on 4/10/10, 3/10/11 and 9/24/11). As shown in the 9/24/11 pdf, the equation accurately predicted the temperature trends for the last 20 years.

The future average global temperature trend that this equation calculates is down. The huge effective thermal capacitance of the oceans (about 30 times everything else) will cause the decline to be only about 0.13°C per decade. The decline may be as much as 0.22°C per decade if the sun goes really quiet.

This trend is corroborated by the growing separation between the rising CO2 and not-rising agt. From 2001 through September, 2011 the atmospheric CO2 increased by 23.7% of the total increase from 1800 to 2001 while the average global temperature has not increased. The 23.7% CO2 increase is the significant measurement, not the comparatively brief time period.

Dan, why post this in a blog & not in a journal? And why spam every climate septic website? Are you afraid of review by experts? Would you rather the vicarious taste of fame & adulation from those who don’t notice your serial errors?

This analysis has nothing to do with curve fitting. Equations determined by curve fitting, such as the linear regressions done by Climate Scientists to show rising temperatures (even though temperatures stopped rising a decade ago), have no predictive ability.

Maybe this will help. The coefficient ‘a’ is just an offset, much like the derived constant (the one that is not multiplied by the independent variable) in a linear regression, it merely shifts the location of the curve on the chart without changing its shape. The influence of CO2 is either discovered or selected by the value of ‘d’. The influence of CO2 is eliminated by setting ‘d’ to zero. Note that assuming that CO2 has no influence has no significant effect on the coefficient of determination. The Effective Sea Surface Temperature oscillation range is given by ‘c’ and is between 0.34 and 0.39. That leaves only ‘b’ the factor that indicates the influence of the sunspot number (a proxy for energy retained by the planet), to be determined. The result is an equation that calculates temperatures for over 115 years with a coefficient of determination of 0.88. As you may or may not know, that is better than anyone else has done.

This got held up by WordPress. I don’t know why, but they usually get it right.

We have a huge amount of spam by now (128 in the last 24 hours), WordPress do a pretty good job as a whole.

I’m going to take a look at pangburndan’s “equation”, probably at the next weekend as I haven’t got the time for the next few days. In the meantime I would appreciate any refrain from further replies to the last comment by Dan.

naturally like your web site but you have to check the
spelling on several of your posts. Many of them
are rife with spelling problems and I find it very troublesome to inform the reality then again I’ll certainly come again again.

I feel this is one of the so much important info for me.
And i am glad reading your article. But want to statement on
few basic things, The web site taste is ideal, the articles is truly excellent
: D. Excellent activity, cheers